Who should bear responsibility for an excessive water bill caused by a broken toilet?

Greetings:

I’m reaching out for advice regarding a recent issue faced by our condo board. First, thank you for the helpful contributions on this forum. As a board member of a 12-unit condo, we have applied some advice from here with good results.

Situation: A few months ago, the city alerted us that our water usage was unusually high. After investigating with the property owners, we found that a toilet in one unit was broken. The tenants didn’t know there was an issue since the toilet still flushed. The owner is not directly managing the rental; instead, a management company handles the property.
Working with the city water department, we determined how much of the bill resulted from the broken toilet. We are asking the owner to cover that portion.
Once the toilet was repaired, our water usage returned to normal.

This has led to a debate among our board members about who should pay the extra charges. Some think the owner or management company should be responsible, since the problem was in their unit and could have been prevented with better maintenance. Others argue that since utilities are shared and the tenants didn’t notice the issue, maybe the condo should share some of the cost. This expense has taken us way over budget, and we may need to put other things on hold until this is resolved.

We seek a fair resolution and hope to learn from others’ experiences.
Any insights would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Without reading your declaration, I suspect you are unable to collect for this issue, although I suppose you could request reimbursement.

Condos are a bit of socialism. Everyone shares expenses except a situation where an owner causes damage to a common area. Utilities aren’t a common area. If you had a unit with 2 individuals who took 6 showers a day, you would have the same issue,

In one condo I resided, the HOA opted to pay for leaking faucet and toilet repairs as it was cheaper to have a plumber replace parts than pay ever lasting high water bills.

I appreciate all of your comments.

We notified the owner on Thursday about our decision. I hope we can agree on a solution that is beneficial for both parties.

I think adding sewer and water damage coverage to the owner's policy is a good idea. I will include it in my policy. I had planned to contact our insurance company on Monday to review our coverage. Although I've read the policy, it can be somewhat confusing.

We do not conduct annual inspections, as our management company hasn't performed a thorough property inspection since COVID-19. However, we do have the authority to enter the property in case of emergencies and for maintenance purposes.

We are also working with our attorney to draft an amendment that will give us more control over the renters. This would be a good time to add the water and sewer coverage for the owners.

Thanks

Indeed.

It may be enough to cause the owner's insurer to contact the HOA insurer, and everyone's insurance premiums are going to rise. The HOA and owner will be that much closer to non-renewal of their insurance.

Take a close look at your CC&Rs. In my community, the board is allowed to levy a special assessment against an individual unit only in specific circumstances - typically when a unit owner has caused damage to the common elements and the repair costs are documented.

In a situation like this, I'm not sure we would be able to pass on the costs:

* The exact amount of the loss is undetermined.
* Water isn't a "common element", although it is a common expense.
* It's unclear whether the unit owner actually caused the damage to the toilet, or if the damage resulted from normal wear and tear. (We have extremely hard water in my area, and it can mess up appliances and the insides of a toilet tank if the owner hasn't installed a water softener.

I think in a similar situation, we'd probably view this as a cost of doing business and not charge the unit owner. We did in fact have a similar issues several years ago (a water softener was malfunctioning - our property manager noticed the increase in the water bill for that building and did some investigating).

(I also hate shared utilities like this. People who live alone subsidize water usage for those who live with others. And responsible people subsidize the careless and wasteful. I prefer situations where responsible behavior is incentivized, which isn't happening here.)

This is not what I posted.

I have doubts insurers would even pay for the cost of water that leaks. But arguendo, let's suppose some insurers would. First is the question of whether the claim exceeds the deductible. Then the question of the resulting black mark arises.

The cost of this accident sounds like small potatoes, dollar-wise. Boards need to focus on being self-insured for the small stuff. Call it a "rainy day account" in the budget. Next the focus should be on putting in place rules pertaining to maintenance of commodes.

Turning to insurance to solve this problem sounds more costly.

agree with michael56.

In condominiums with shared utilities, owners are responsible for notifying the association of any maintenance issues. Owners should be clear with tenants to immediately notify the owner if any maintenance issues are present. Including, running toilets, leaking faucets, ac not cooling properly, leaking windows or ceiling.

Sure, if you are referencing repairs that are HOA responsibility.

The issue is the maintenance for toilets, faucets, AC, furnaces, doors and windows are the owners responsibility. The HOA isn’t fixing any of this stuff. So why would the HOA need to be notified if the building is not damaged?

When central HVAC is provided as part of the HOA assessment, windows and doors in poor condition can increase the energy costs. We read on this forum the complaints when HOA boards require owner maintenance for windows. In one lower income condo I lived in with central heat, the energy waste from poor windows was excessive, but board was going to be powerless requiring window replacement.

Landlords aren’t known for maintaining this kinds of stuff unless they are required to do so and far to many owners fall into the same category. Calling a plumber or sharing a water leak / number of unit owners is easy math.

Condominiums should have these provisions in their governing documents:

--Unit owners must maintain their unit and fixtures in good condition
--Owners must report problems to the association
--Owners are responsible for damages due to their neglect or carelessness (including not maintaining fixtures)
--Owners are responsible for their tenants (and families, guests, invitees, etc.)

Anne, check your governing documents for these provisions, since they form the basis of your request/demand for reimbursement.

Even if the docs do not contain such provisions, there is still the idea of negligence, which is a failure to exercise the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the same situation, resulting in harm or injury. This is pretty much the same as all of the above provisions, and you could go to small claims court just using a negligence argument.

A preponderance of the evidence won't do it. A special assessment is just that: an assessment. As such, failure to pay it can result in collection actions, liens, and even foreclosure. It's not like a fine which many states won't allow as the basis for a foreclosure. And given the variable nature of water usage, one person's leaky toilet can easily hide another person's malfunctioning water softener or dripping faucet. The only way to be sure you're doing things correctly is if units are separately metered - in which case water would probably not be included in the monthly assessment at all.

Anything involving money can wind up in court, so the board needs to have solid proof that the owner was assessed correctly. I'm the treasurer in my community, and playing loosey-goosey with money gives me hives - I'm a correct-to-the-penny gal.

I like Jeff's ideas. They could be added to the documents (with homeowner approval), then the board could establish specific policies to flesh them out, addressing things like who to contact in case of emergency, what constitutes an emergency, etc.

I did some googling, and it mentioned some buildings install submeters on their utility lines to show exactly how much water is being used. Others charge a higher share of the utility expenses to larger units, because larger units are more likely to have more people living there and therefore use more water. The submeter installation could get expensive depending on the age of the building and how complex the plumbing is, so if you want to consider that, you will need an expert plumbing company and probably the water company to see if it's possible.

Then there's the matter of getting permits, how long the work will take (if the water will n e shut off for longer than one day, people may need to live elsewhere, and then you'll n need to decide who pays for that (it should be the homeowner because that's usually covered on their individual policy anyway. Ditto for renters insurance)

Since there doesn't seem to be a way to tie the extra water use to this owner, it may be best to split the cost with him or her (since we do know the toilet DID have a problem) and the explore options and hold a few special homeowner meetings to exchanges opinions and options.

So zero? That is not correct-to-the-penny either. What is a reasonable charge?

Hi everyone,

Thanks for all your suggestions and comments. I wanted to clear up a few things.

First off, there was no property damage, so there's no need to get the insurance company involved.

Regarding the water issue, we used a reliable method to identify the problem, not just guesses. When we were notified that our water usage was unusually high, we started taking daily meter readings until a few days after the toilet was fixed. We also compared this year’s water bills with previous years and saw a significant increase.

As I mentioned before, the water usage returned to normal after the repair. To be safe, we checked the water in all units last week and didn’t find any other problems, except for some condensation from a few air conditioning units.

Thanks again for your input!

Sounds great, but you are asking the owner to pay for structural insurance twice. In the assessments they pay and by paying their own policy.

The other issue is liability. Yes, a kitchen fire might be negligence, but water damage or an electrical fire may not be and the HOA insurance would still be on the ho9k.